Genetically engineered foods debate sows seeds of discontent

The issue of genetically engineered foods has given way to heated debates
globally over scientific ethics, health and environmental dangers, and
labelling laws. And now added to an already morally loaded discussion is
the issue of freedom of speech. At a recent public information session on
genetic food engineering presented in Ottawa, Canada, attendants were
incensed to find that the federal government agency Health Canada had
forbidden one of its outspoken scientists, Shiv Chopra, to speak at the
event.

Genetically engineered or not?

Richard Wolfson, event organisor and leader of the Consumer Right To Know
Campaign in Ottawa, called the action a "gag order". Not only is the public
being denied consumer choice regarding unlabelled "mutant foods", he said,
but also denied is "access to critical information from scientists with an
insider's perspective on genetic engineering and its implications". The
general suspicion is that the order comes in the wake of Chopra's last
public appearance on a television news show, after which he was reprimanded
for commenting that money belied government approval of substances such as
bovine growth hormone and that biotech companies held both the purse and
the puppet strings.

But the gag order is only a drop in the deluge of accusations about
corporate tyranny. In the USA, two investigative reporters accused Fox
Television of succumbing to pressures from the biotech company Monsanto
after it lobbied to pull or heavily edit a story about bovine growth
hormone. After refusing hush money and being fired last December, one of
the reporters, Steve Wilson, wrote in The Nation, "We believe that what
happened to us should raise concern not only about the rapidly decreasing
number of companies that control our media but also about the true
character and motivation of those who seek to use the public airwaves to
enhance their corporate bottom lines".

Among scientists, many question how rigorous governments are in their
testing requirements for biotech products. Margaret Mellon, director of
agriculture and biotechnology for the Union of Concerned Scientists warned
in a recent issue of Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News that agricultural
biotechnology is "not a miracle technology. It's had lots of mistakes. It's
an expensive technology that's problematic".

Besides, who can possibly predict long-term effects? Byron P Rigby,
president of the Australian Association of Ayurvedic Medicine, recently
wrote in the Australian newspaper, Living Now, that biotechnology makes
Chernobyl, "mad-cow" disease, and cane toads pale in comparison, given its
"completely imponderable effects". Now the question remains, how much are
countries willing to gamble for a softer bread crust or a firmer tomato?

Monsanto at the weekend published an advertisement as part of its
controversial £1 million advertising campaign. The ad is to persuade the
European public that biotech will feed the world's growing population.

More than 24 leading African agriculturalists and environmental scientists
representing their countries at the UN _ have issued a statement to counter
Monsanto's arguments. They say Monsanto is using the poor to emotionally
blackmail sceptical Europeans by making claims that which are blatantly
untrue and unproven.

"We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our
farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the
contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and
the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for
millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves."

The African statement calls on Europeans and others to stand in solidarity
to resist the gene technology, especially the Terminator Technology_ which
destroys the capacity of seed to reproduce itself.

"This is a crime against nature and humanity and should be resisted and
terminated" said
Dr. Tewolde Gebre Egziabher of Ethiopia. Prof. Wangari Mathai of the Green
Belt Movement Kenya said: "History has many records of crimes against
humanity, which were also justified by dominant commercial interests and
governments of the day. Despite protests from citizens, social justice for
the common good was eroded in favour of private profits. Today, patenting
of life forms and the genetic engineering which it stimulates, is being
justified on the grounds that it will benefit society, especially the poor,
by providing better and more food and medicine. But in fact, by
monopolising the 'raw' biological materials, the development of other
options is deliberately blocked. Farmers therefore, become totally
dependent on the corporations for seeds".

Others from developing countries are watching developments with extreme
concern. Dr. Vandana Shiva of the Research Foundation for Science and
Technology says: "Monsanto's technologies are not environment friendly, or
sustainable. They pose a threat to ecosystems and agriculture. Monsanto's
technologies will push Bangladeshi peasants into debt as they have to spend
more money on herbicides, seeds, royalties and technology fees. This
rising indebtedness of farmers is intrinsic to industrial agriculture and
is the reason why only 2 per cent farmers survive in the U.S. and thousands
of farmers have committed suicide in India".

The African statement comes amid growing controversy in the UK over
genetically engineered crops. Many groups are now supporting calls for a 5
year moratorium on the commercial growing and sale of genetically
engineered crops. A recent survey of the guardians of middle England, the
members of the National Federation of Women's Institutes showed that 92.9%
of those surveyed felt that more control should be exercised over the
multinational companies involved! France ordered a moratorium on GE crops
this week and Grameen Bank in Bangladesh withdrew support for it's planned
partnership with Monsanto because of environmental concerns.

Enclosures for Editors:

Monsanto's Ad published 1st August in The Independent/ 2ndAugust in
The Observer

African Statement "Let natures harvest CONTINUE!"

Communiqué from the Rural Advancement Foundation International
(RAFI) on Terminator Technology developed by Delta and Pine Land Co now
owned by Monsanto.

Copy of the Survey by the National Federation of Women's Institutes

Article by Prof. Wangari Mathai The Linkage between Patenting of
Life Forms, Genetic Engineering and Food Insecurity.

As government delegates to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
Commission specialising in plant genetic resources, farmers rights, access
and benefit sharing.

Paper from RAFI enclosed about the Terminator Technology _
Spokesperson for the African Group at the FAO, negotiator at the Biosafety
Protocol of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and General Manager
of the Environmental Protection Authority in Ethiopia.

GM Oilseed rape results reveal poor performance

The Natural Law Party is advising farmers in Dorset that they should avoid
growing genetically modified oilseed rape next year, in the event that
government consent for the crop is granted. The Natural Law Party has
discovered results of trials in Canada showing genetically modified (GM)
varieties are being out-performed by conventional non-modified varieties,
despite being approved for official seed registration lists.

Information obtained by the Natural Law Party confirms that GM oilseed rape
has not been scoring high enough points in standard performance tests to
get onto officially approved seed lists in Canada. In order to overcome
this problem the approval committee concerned has had to change the scoring
system, and has only succeeded in getting approval for GM rape varieties by
awarding special bonus points which do not relate to crop output.

Farmers misled

The Natural Law Party has criticised the Canadian authorities for altering
the rules in order to artificially promote GM products when they are
agronomically inferior to non-modified varieties, particularly when farmers
rely on the official listings for guidance on which crops to grow.
Harvested GM oilseed rape in Canada is showing falls in yields of up to 21%
compared to traditional varieties.

According to Mark Griffiths, Leader of the Wessex Natural Law Party and NLP
national Environment spokesman,"This is a disgraceful state of affairs.
Farmers in Dorset and other arable areas of the UK are being pressurised by
biotechnology companies to follow their colleagues in North America and
plunge into growing GM crops. They are claiming that this is necessary for
UK agriculture to remain competitive on world markets. The evidence in this
case is that exactly the opposite it is true. The official approvals
system is being manipulated to cover this up."

Testing system doctored to suit GM crops

In order to be included in approved seed lists in Canada oilseed rape
varieties are evaluated on the basis of their agronomic value. Merit scores
are awarded for yield, disease resistance, earliness etc. To be accepted
varieties have to score more than 108 points. In this case GM oilseed rape
varieties were found by the approval committee to be "not agronomically as
good as the check cultivars" and failed to score the necessary points.

However, the committee (which includes representatives from plant breeders
and seed growers) decided to change the scoring system to accommodate the
GM varieties and awarded them additional bonus points. This extra score
allowed a number of Liberty Link cultivars (bred by AgrEvo) and one Round
Up Ready cultivar (bred by Monsanto) to be registered in 1995.

The official reason given for changing the system was "the demand and
desirability of the herbicide tolerant trait" for which the varieties had
been genetically engineered. However, herbicide tolerant crops can lead to
considerable rotation management problems, particularly in relation to the
control of subsequent herbicide tolerant 'volunteers' and 'superweeds'.
AgrEvo has already admitted this will lead to farmers becoming reliant on a
wider range of their herbicides in the longer term.

GM varieties lose farmers money

Earlier this year a director of the Ontario Canola (Rape) Growers
Association revealed that yields on his farm from Monsanto's Round Up
Ready rape seed had fallen to 2.2t/ha compared with a 2.6 - 2.8/ha average
for traditional varieties, with no savings in net costs.

"The actual performance of these crops exposes the misleading and entirely
subjective basis on which the seed approval system for GM rape has itself
been modified. Farmers are being hit by this misinformation directly where
it hurts most - in their pockets," adds Mr Griffiths.

Food safety dangers

However, the wider implications of the situation are even more serious
believes a concerned Mr Griffiths: "What this experience reveals is that
the biotechnology 'experts' are not in control of their science. By
engineering one trait they are inadvertently disrupting other aspects of
the plant's functioning, which has lead to lower yields in this particular
case. But how long will it be before the inherently random techniques used
in this technology also trigger a change in plant gene expression which is
damaging to human health? The whole approach is 'suck it and see' and
unscientific, and that is completely unacceptable when we are dealing with
global food security."

The UK government is currently deliberating whether or not to allow the
first GM oilseed rape crops to be grown in Britain in 1999. The Natural
Law Party, now established in over 70 countries around the world (including
all 15 EU nations), is seeking a global ban on genetically modified food
because of the uncontainable dangers to human health and the environment.

Notes for Editors:

More information on the dangers of genetically engineered food and
agronomic problems of GM crops is available from the Wessex Natural Law
Party Web site at www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex .

Mark Griffiths was NLP candidate for West Dorset in the 1997
General Election, and is a Chartered Surveyor with over 20 years
agricultural land management experience in the UK and overseas. He can be
contacted on 01962 852122.

Details of rape approvals in Canada relate to the activities of the
Western Canada Canola and Rapeseed Recommending Committee (WCC/RRC),
reported at a workshop meeting of FACTT 11th December 1997.

FACTT (Familiarisation and Acceptance of Crops incorporating Transgenic
Technology) is a body funded by the European Commission and partner
organisations in the agricultural sector. Plant Genetic Systems (Belgium),
a subsidiary of European biotechnology and agro-chemical company AgrEvo, is
the co-ordinator of FACTT. FACTT has a total budget of 3.6 ECU of which
1.6 million is provided by the Commission.

FACTT can be contacted in the UK through Dr Paul Meakin, Home Grown Cereals
Authority, 0171 263 3391.

We would like to get the word out to everyone in America!
Please help us by forwarding the message below to as many people as you can.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

August 4, 1998

An Urgent Message to all Environmentally and Socially Responsible Americans

Right now over 60% of the foods in your local stores contain
genetically engineered organisms. Hormones, viruses, bacteria,
substances that have never been part of the human food supply now
permeate the foods we eat every day. Everything from pizza to
chips; soda to baby formula.

There have been no studies or long-term safety testing of these foods.
Even worse, none of these foods are labeled so we are denied the
basic parental right to choose what we are feeding our families.

Meanwhile, doctors and scientists all over the world are voicing
grave concerns about genetically engineered foods, and entire
countries are banning them from their borders.

What are they worried about? Allergic reactions, increased estrogen
levels, rise in breast and prostate cancer, the creation of super
bacteria, the spread of toxic viruses, and much more.

Where do genetically engineered foods come from? They are the
brainchild of the same industry that brought us DDT, Agent Orange,
and Thalidomide ...

Today these same companies are short-circuiting standards for
responsible labeling and testing of the foods we eat. More
successfully than any other lobby, they have managed to inhibit the
only means of protection consumers have: government regulation and
consumer choice.

To get a feel for the depth of the genetic engineering crisis,
consider this: The biotech industry is well on the way to
controlling development, production and processing of our global
seed supply. And if they make a mistake, it cannot be fixed -
genetic pollution cannot be contained or cleaned up. It will last
as long as there is life on earth.

Mothers for Natural Law is sponsoring a nation-wide Right to Know
Campaign. Our immediate goal is to collect 1,000,000 names to a
petition demanding truthful labeling of genetically engineered foods
by Thanksgiving.

Call our office at 515-472-2809 for more information and a hard
copy of our petition.

Duplicate and distribute the petition (with your logo on it) to
your mailing list/network, with your newsletter/magazine, in your
store/office.

I urge you to step forward to protect the integrity of our planet
and safeguard the future for our children.

Sincerely,

Laura Ticciati
Executive Director,
Mothers for Natural Law

Mothers for Natural law is a non-profit educational organization
coordinating a national public awareness campaign on the dangers of
genetically engineered foods and the national coordinator for the
Consumer Right to Know - One Million in 98 - Campaign.

Biotechnology Morgan Stanley analyst Doug Lind 07/31/98

Reporter Hyperbole Check
Report on Business Magazine
The Globe and Mail Page 14

The Hype- In the early '90s, smart, agile biotech companies were the new
Merlins: From drugs to treat cancer and AIDS, to building a better pig, or
customizing microbes to eat oil spills, they promised miracles of the
medical, environmental and, especially, financial variety. In 1991, more
than 100 biotech companies went public in the United States alone, and
Canadian companies like Cangene Corp., Biomira Inc., BioChem Pharma Inc.
and Allelix Biopharmaceuticals Inc. were golden. That year, biotech was
the best-performing sector among U.S. equity mutuals, with an average
return of 74%. This rosy scenario led analysts like Michael Jams of Dlouhy
Investments to assert, "The thinking is that the way to make money is to
buy biotech stocks. This is the hot new sector of the '90s."

The reality Since 1991, biotech has been on a roller coaster, crashing
in '92, perking slightly in '94 and flat-lining in '97. Over all, the
sector has fired more blanks than silver bullets. The research,
development and marketing of new pharmaceutical products is a lengthy,
capital-intensive, oft-delayed process, and the gap between the blue sky
and the blue Viagra pill on the cover of Time has turned out to be too
great for impatient investors in an overheated market.

To wit:

In 1997, the TSE biotech index dropped 5.06%.

Yorkton Securities's life sciences index fell almost 17% that year.

The biotech sector will continue to underperform in 1998.

Most products will fail, and many companies will fail. There will be big
winners and big losers, but the net effect will probably be
dead-in-the-water zero growth."

Open Letter to Monsanto's Robert Shapiro

In last Sunday's Observer, Monsanto, of which you are chairman and chief
executive, claimed that food biotechnology will feed 'starving future
generations'. This was the latest installment in your company's £1 million
advertising campaign aimed at convincing the public that genetically
engineered crops will benefit the world. But your company is wrong. Rather
than reducing world hunger, genetic engineering is likely to exacerbate it.

My major concern is that the biotech 'solution' being promoted by Monsanto
will have a devastating impact on the world's poorest people. Your advert
claims 'it is the 'responsible way' to provide food for the next century. I
believe the 'Monsanto way' is to make small farmers dependent on your
products. This will lead to the decline of sustainable farming, denying
farmers their right to use appropriate farming methods to produce their own
safe food.

Your company has bought the technology to produce genetically engineered
seeds which are sterile and can only be grown for one year. This
'development' will deprive farmers of their right to collect and grow their
own seeds freely. As natural varieties die out, farmers will be forced to
buy new genetically engineered seeds every year and their current efforts
to save and breed their own seeds will be totally undermined. Farmers will
be caught in a vicious circle, increasingly dependent on a small number of
multinationals, such as Monsanto, for their survival.

For twenty five years Action Aid has been listening to poor farmers and
supporting their efforts to maintain sustainable farming. Even though the
world's population is growing, we know it produces enough food for all -
food mountains are evidence of this. It is the inequitable distribution of
food that is keeping millions hungry.

Finally, your advertising campaign completely fails to mention the very
significant risks involved in releasing genetically engineered crops into
the natural enviroment. Your advert states that that the implications of
biotechnology are 'massive'. I agree.

Monsanto could be responsible for introducing a new enemy to developing
countries. If crops are genetically engineered to be resistant to weed
killer, they may cross-pollinate with 'wild species' to produce 'super
weeds' which cannot be controlled.

The truth is, Mr Shapiro, that genetically engineered crops will a 'better
way forward' for Monsanto's profits, but could be huge step backwards for
the world's poor.

Let Nature's Harvest Continue

Statement from all the African delegates (except South Africa) to FAO
negotiations on the International Undertaking for Plant Genetic Resources,
June 1998; due to be published in the European media in late July 1998

(Document begins) During the past few weeks European citizens have been
exposed to an aggressive publicity campaign in major European newspapers
trying to convince the reader that the world needs genetic engineering to
feed the hungry. Organised and financed by Monsanto, one of the world's
biggest chemical companies, and titled "Let the Harvest Begin", this
campaign gives a totally distorted and misleading picture of the potential
of genetic engineering to feed developing countries.

We, the undersigned delegates of African countries participating in the 5th
Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources, 8 - 12 June
1998, Rome, strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our
countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a
technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically
beneficial to us.

It is time to look at some of the facts about the company behind this campaign:

Monsanto is one of the world's largest pesticide companies. During the past
two years only it spent over US$6000 million to take control over other
seed and biotechnology companies and is now the major industrial player in
this field. Its major focus is not to protect the environment, but to
develop crops that can resist higher doses of its best-selling chemical
weedkiller "Roundup".

Rather than stretching a helping hand to farmers, Monsanto threatens them
with lawsuits and jail. In the USA, the company employs detectives to find
and bring to court those farmers that save Monsanto soybean seeds for next
year's planting. Backed by patent law, the company demands the rights to
inspect the farmers' fields to check whether they practise agriculture
according to Monsanto conditions and with Monsanto chemicals.

Rather than developing technology that feeds the world, Monsanto uses
genetic engineering to stop farmers from replanting seed and further
develop their agricultural systems. It has spent US$18000 million to buy a
company owning a patent on what has become known as Terminator Technology:
seed that can be planted only once and dies in the second generation. The
only aim of this technology is to force farmers back to the Monsanto shop
every year, and to destroy an age old practice of local seed saving that
forms the basis of food security in our countries.

In "Let the Harvest Begin" the Europeans are asked to give an unconditional
green light to gene technology so that chemical corporations such as
Monsanto can start harvesting their profits from it. We do not believe
that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce
the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it
will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable
agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that
it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.

In particular, we will not accept the use of Terminator or other gene
technologies that kill the capacity of our farmers to grow the food we
need. We invite European citizens to stand in solidarity with Africa in
resisting these gene technologies so that our diverse and natural harvests
can continue and grow.

We agree and accept that mutual help is needed to further improve
agricultural production in our countries. We also believe that Western
science can contribute to this. But it should be done on the basis of
understanding and respect for what is already there. It should be building
on local knowledge, rather than replacing and destroying it. And most
importantly: it should address the real needs of our people, rather than
serving only to swell the pockets and control of giant industrial
corporations.

NAME:

Jean Marie Fodoun, Cameroun

George A. Agbahungba, Benin

Paul Therence Senghor, Senegal

Koffi Goti, Cote d'Ivoire

Mokosa Madende, Congo Democ

Jean Jacques Rakotonalala, Madagascar

Juvent Baramburiye, Burundi

Worku Damena, Ethiopia

Gietaturn Mulat, Ethiopia

M.S. Harbi, Sudan

Eltahir Ibrahim Mohamed, Sudan

Maria A. Calane da Silva, Mozambique

Kohna Nganara Ngawara, Tchad

Nkeoua Gregoire, Congo

Mugorewera Drocella, Rwanda

H. Yahia-Cafrif, Algeria

Abebe Demissie, Ethiopia

G.P. Mwila, Zambia

Dr S.H. Raljtsogle, Lesotho

Naceu Hamza, Tunisia

Hambourne Mellas, Morocco

Elizabeth Matos, Angola

Tewolde Berhane Gebre Egziabher, Ethiopia

Additional statement by Zimbabwean delegate:

"Africa should not be used as a testing ground for technologies and
products which have been developed elsewhere. We reserve our sovereign
right to test these technologies ourselves, examine their effectiveness and
compatibility to the environment in our region."

US Children Used to Test Crop Genetic Engineering?

Many list members will recollect that I have written a number of articles
about the use of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) genes in crop genetic
engineering. The clear majority if not all, the genetically engineered
crops now being sold use an essential gene, called a promoter, from CaMV to
make their for herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, etc. work.

The virus gene takes over an essential function that makes the foreign
active in the genetically engineered crop. The CaMV genes were not tested
for their safety in humans and there are valid concerns about the impact
of such genes and their recombination with other viruses.

A recently published experiment raises disturbing questions about
government and academic approval of experiments using human subjects. The
article "Pathogen transmission in child care settings studied by using
cauliflower virus DNA as a surrogate marker" Jiang,X et.al J.Infect. Dis.
177,881-8,1998 April used CaMV DNA to study pathogen transmission from
"sensitized" article such as toys to infants and children child care homes
and child care centers in Virginia.

The DNA was stable for over a month in the child environment. Toddlers were
found to spread CaMV more efficiently than infants and hand touching was
found to be the main source of DNA spread. CaMV was spread from the child
care center to the children's homes.

The experiment really follows epidemiological studies of disease bacteria
and virus spread in child care environments. The experiments do not
contribute a great deal to the study of disease spread in child care
environments but they are most valuable to the crop genetic engineering
industry, who will use such experiments in the safety evaluation of
genetically engineered crops.

The industry will not flaunt such child-infant experiments to the public,
but in the back rooms where governments evaluate the safety of crops the
experiment provides a piece of evidence to please the needs of huge
multinational companies who control patents and production of genetically
engineered crops.

However, the use of CaMV DNA with children and infants does entail
significant risks that seem to have been ignored by the researchers. A
growing body of research shows that DNA taken up by injection (or through
cuts and abrasions) or breathed through the nose associated with dust like
particulate can trigger production of the protein products of the gene that
then trigger allergy .

Spreading virus DNA in public places is likely promote recombination of the
virus genes to create novel and threatening virus pathogens but the point
is that there is little or no laboratory experimentation to allow judgement
as weather or not the experiment is safe or very unsafe. The published
experiments show that government and academe accept the principle governing
crop genetic engineering that everything is safe until it has been proven
to have created a disaster. The United States is plumbing the depths of the
third Reich by allowing infants and children to be experimented on.

Gene Potatoes Damage Rats' Immune Systems

Nigel Hawkes on new evidence about dangers of genetically modified food
Times (london) August 10 1998 BRITAIN Line

GENETICALLY modified potatoes can damage the immune systems of rats, a
research project in Aberdeen has discovered.

Professor Arpad Puztai, of the Rowett Research Institute, will say on
tonight's World in Action on ITV that he will not eat genetically-modifed
crops until they have undergone at least as exhaustive a trial. "If I had
the choice I would certainly not eat it until I see at least comparable
experimental evidence," he says.

The trials have been carried out on potatoes carrying genes from both the
snowdrop and the jackbean. The genes are responsible for producing proteins
called lectins, which protect the parent plants from aphid and nematode
attack. Potatoes resistant to these pests could be valuable.

But lectins are known to damage immune-system cells, so the feeding
experiments with rats were designed to see if the damage occurred when the
lectins were present in the potatoes. In the case of the snowdrop lectin,
no such effect was observed, but the jackbean lectin did suppress the
immune system.